Dr Hilary Cass’s long-awaited review into healthcare for transgender children and young people was released this week. Her verdict was damning, and was delivered with Swiftian understatement:
‘The adoption of a medical treatment with uncertain risks, based on an unpublished trial that did not demonstrate clear benefit, is a departure from normal clinical practice.’
But perhaps even more shocking was this quote:
‘There is minimal research evidence to inform questions regarding likely trajectories and outcomes particularly in the context of: a) physical treatments (e.g. hormone blockers to suppress the onset of puberty); b) social transition (where a child presents to other people as their experienced gender e.g. using preferred gender pronouns) and; c) co-occurring ASD [Autistic Spectrum Disorder].’
It is shocking because it was not in the Cass Review at all. Instead, it comes from a funding application submitted in 2019 by the Tavistock, the NHS trust at the centre of the scandal. Clearly the Tavistock knew as far back as 2019 that there was a dearth of evidence about the long-term effects of these treatments. But
Get Britain's best politics newsletters
Register to get The Spectator's insight and opinion straight to your inbox. You can then read two free articles each week.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in